Cardell Hill v. The City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-03973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hill v. Soto, Judge Ramos dismissed Jeramy Michael Cardell Hill’s case with prejudice after he stopped prosecuting it and ignored a court order.
Jeramy Michael Cardell Hill’s case was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The opinion’s caption identifies Captain Soto as the defendant; the earlier City of New York and New York City Department of Correction defendants had already been dismissed.
What happened
In Jeramy Michael Cardell Hill v. Captain Soto, Hill filed a complaint and later an amended complaint. The court dismissed the City of New York and the Department of Correction as defendants and added Captain Soto, but the City could not identify him. Hill then stopped communicating with the court for more than a year.
The court ordered Hill to explain why the case should not be dismissed and warned that failing to follow court orders could lead to dismissal. Hill did not respond. The court found that the delay, the warning, the likely prejudice from further delay, the need to manage its cases, and the lack of a useful lesser penalty all supported dismissal.
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), directed the Clerk of Court to mail Hill a copy of the order, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Cardell Hill v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-03973
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
Jeramy Michael Cardell Hill filed a complaint as a self-represented plaintiff against the City of New York and others. The court dismissed that complaint and allowed him to amend it. Hill then filed an amended complaint against the City and the New York City Department of Correction.
The court later dismissed the City and the Department of Correction as defendants and added Captain Soto. The City told the court that it could not identify Captain Soto. The court directed Hill to provide more information, but Hill said he did not remember any additional details. The court then relieved the City of the obligation to identify Captain Soto.
Hill did not contact the court afterward. Because he had not advanced the case for more than a year, the court ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed by February 2, 2021. The order warned that failing to follow court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Rule 41(b) Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or fails to comply with court orders. The court considered five factors: the length of the plaintiff’s failures, whether the plaintiff received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, whether further delay would likely prejudice the defendant, whether the court balanced case-management concerns with the plaintiff’s right to be heard, and whether a lesser penalty could work.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that all five factors supported dismissal. Hill had made no effort to advance the case for more than a year. He had received a specific warning that failing to follow court orders could lead to dismissal. The court presumed that the unreasonable delay could prejudice the defendant and found no circumstances rebutting that presumption.
The court also found that Hill had been given a fair opportunity to be heard and that the court was not required to continue pursuing a case that Hill had abandoned. Finally, the court concluded that no penalty less severe than dismissal could remedy both Hill’s extended failure to advance the case and his failure to respond to the order to show cause.
Disposition
The court dismissed Hill’s case with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Hill a copy of the order and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.